Applehttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/4561/all
enState Solar Jobs Report Is Good News For The Economy And Environmenthttp://www.desmogblog.com/2015/02/13/state-solar-jobs-report-good-news-economy-and-environment
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/shutterstock_61884133.jpg?itok=-Yts-Czs" width="200" height="181" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The Solar Foundation released its <a href="http://www.thesolarfoundation.org/solar-jobs-census/states/" target="_blank">2014 State Solar Jobs Census</a> yesterday demonstrating that solar energy is still one of the fastest growing industries in the <span class="caps">US</span>, which is good news for our economy and the environment.<br /><br /><a href="http://pre.thesolarfoundation.org/solarstates#ca" target="_blank">California ranks number one</a>, with 54,700 jobs in solar installation, manufacturing, sales and distribution. Massachusetts came in second with 9,400 jobs. The booming solar industry — which now <a href="http://www.thesolarfoundation.org/solar-jobs-census/national/" target="_blank">employs nearly 175,000 Americans</a> nationwide — is not strictly a blue state phenomenon, however. Arizona came in a close third with 9,200 jobs.<br /><br />
The solar industry’s growth isn’t bound by geography, either.<br /><br />
“Big gains in employment are no longer limited to solar-friendly California and the sunny Southwest,” Rhone Resch, president and <span class="caps">CEO</span> of the Solar Energy Industries Association (<span class="caps">SEIA</span>), said in a <a href="http://www.seia.org/news/solar-job-growth-benefitting-economy-environment" target="_blank">statement</a>. “Employment is also booming in East Coast states, including Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina and Maryland, while significantly growing in the southern states of Texas, Georgia and Florida.”<br /><br />
In other words, with solar making big gains in red states and blue states alike last year, the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/07/14/california-and-texas-pioneers-mainstreaming-renewable-energy" target="_blank">mainstreaming of renewable energy</a> continues apace.</p>
<!--break-->
<p><br />
The environmental benefits of solar energy are obvious. There is an estimated 20 gigawatts (<span class="caps">GW</span>) of solar capacity installed in the <span class="caps">US</span>, which is enough to power 4 million homes. This helped offset 20 million metric tons of <span class="caps">CO</span>2 emissions in 2014, roughly equivalent to the amount of emissions from burning 2.1 billion gallons of gas, <a href="http://www.seia.org/news/solar-job-growth-benefitting-economy-environment" target="_blank">according to the <span class="caps">SEIA</span></a>.<br /><br />
What is not discussed as often is how beneficial solar is to the economy. The solar industry <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-coal-economy-jobs/" target="_blank">employs twice as many Americans</a> as the coal industry and generates $15 billion in economic benefits, for instance.<br /><br />
A recent <a href="http://nccleantech.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/Going-Solar-in-America-Ranking-Solars-Value-to-Customers_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">study by <span class="caps">NC</span> Clean Energy</a> found that “in 46 of America’s 50 largest cities, a fully-financed, typically-sized solar <span class="caps">PV</span> system is a better investment than the stock market, and in 42 of these cities, the same system already costs less than energy from a residential customer’s local utility.”<br /><br />
The price of a solar photovoltaic system has dropped by more than half since 2010, helping <a href="http://www.americasupportssolar.org/" target="_blank">more than 600,000 homes and businesses</a> to go solar, generating 7,850 megawatts (<span class="caps">MW</span>) of power. Meanwhile, solar heating and cooling systems are helping Americans save so much on utility bills that they’re paying for themselves in just <a href="http://www.americasupportssolar.org/" target="_blank">three to six years</a>.<br /><br />
If solar’s growth to date sounds impressive, Resch says “we’re just scratching the surface of our enormous potential.”<br /><br />
Corporate America certainly seems to see the potential. The top 25 corporate solar users — companies like Ikea, Costco, and Apple — have installed nearly 570 <span class="caps">MW</span> of solar capacity.<br /><br />
In fact, Apple, which already has 4 solar installations with the capacity for 41 <span class="caps">MW</span> of energy output, just announced it is <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/apple-invests-850-million-solar-citing-climate-change-306191" target="_blank">investing $850 million</a> in a 2,900-acre solar farm that will power its headquarters and a data center, all of its California-based retail stores, and 60,000 homes.<br /><br />
In total, expect to see another 20 <span class="caps">GW</span> of installed solar capacity through 2016, according to the <span class="caps">SEIA</span>.<br /> </p>
<p style="font-size:9px"><em>Image Credit: <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-61884133/stock-photo-man-installing-alternative-energy-photovoltaic-solar-panels-on-roof.html?src=LmmAbLy8Ct8C_sfFbf47tw-1-3&amp;ws=1" target="_blank">Elena Elisseeva / Shutterstock.com</a></em></p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '9091';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=9091"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6443">solar</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2939">energy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4174">jobs</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1004">economy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2327">environment</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4561">Apple</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3130">ikea</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/19766">Costco</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/19508">The Solar Foundation</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4587">Solar Energy Industries Association</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/19507">SEIA</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/19767">State Solar Jobs Census</a></div></div></div>Fri, 13 Feb 2015 18:58:00 +0000Mike Gaworecki9091 at http://www.desmogblog.comUS Chamber Predicts Economic Apocalypse From New Carbon Rules Despite Opposite Realityhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/04/us-chamber-predicts-economic-apocalypse-new-carbon-rules
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/uschamberlogo.jpg?itok=l0MoTJsf" width="200" height="200" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>It has been less than a week since the <span class="caps">EPA</span> announced new rules for carbon emissions — rules that are being heralded as the <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/02/3443593/obama-historic-action-on-climate-change/">most comprehensive effort to tackle climate change</a> by any sitting <span class="caps">U.S.</span> president — but big business groups have been spreading misinformation about these new rules for weeks.</p>
<p>Leading the charge against the administration’s proposals is the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Chamber of Commerce, the largest business interest group in the country, and arguably the most well-funded. </p>
<p>Just days before the new rules that will limit the amount of carbon that existing power plants can release were made public, the <a href="http://www.energyxxi.org/sites/default/files/file-tool/Assessing_the_Impact_of_Potential_New_Carbon_Regulations_in_the_United_States.pdf">Chamber released a report</a> predicting that any form of carbon regulation would result in economic chaos for the United States. And this <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/28/3442314/chamber-of-commerce-epa-carbon-study/">all happened before</a> the Chamber even know what the rules would actually say.</p>
<p>The Chamber’s report issued these dire warnings to Americans, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/28/3442314/chamber-of-commerce-epa-carbon-study/">summarized by Think Progress</a>:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">Their study determined that it would cost American industry $28.1 billion annually to comply with <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s new regulations, that as many as 224,000 jobs would be lost between now and 2030, that the economy would average $50.2 billion lower a year, that Americans would cumulatively pay $289 billion more for electricity over that period, and that they’d lose $586 billion in disposable income.</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Chamber is attempting to strike at the heart of American fears that it will cost them dearly. Whether it is their job or their hard-earned money, the Chamber wants Americans to be afraid of losing everything they’ve worked so hard to achieve in life.</p>
<p>Back in the land of reality, the Chamber’s claims are easily debunked. To start with, as <a href="http://desmogblog.com/death-talking-point-regulations-actually-create-jobs">we’ve previously discussed here on DeSmogBlog</a>, safety regulations create jobs rather than destroy them. Even <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/14/367539/american-electric-power-ceo-epa-regulations-will-create-new-jobs/">energy industry <span class="caps">CEO</span>s have been willing to admit</a> that this is true in recent years. The <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s estimates show that the new standards will <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/207938-wh-epa-rule-will-lower-bills-create-jobs">create tens of thousands of new jobs</a>, and the administration’s commitment to invest more in renewable energy will add hundreds of thousands of jobs, thus resulting in a net gain of <span class="caps">U.S.</span> jobs.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>As for the cost of the new standards, the Chamber tells us that the economy will lose $50 billion a year, while American families will lose $586 billion in disposable income while paying an additional $289 billion in utility fees each year. They have <a href="http://www.energyxxi.org/sites/default/files/file-tool/Assessing_the_Impact_of_Potential_New_Carbon_Regulations_in_the_United_States.pdf">offered absolutely no evidence</a> to back up these claims, and that is likely due to the fact that the evidence doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">EPA</span> estimates that the new standards will <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/207938-wh-epa-rule-will-lower-bills-create-jobs">cost the industry around $8 billion</a> — a one time cost to bring their plants up to code. That is decisively less than the more than $1 trillion price tag that the Chamber put on the new standards. <br /><br />
You also have to factor in the amount of money saved by the new standards. It is estimated that the new standards will be saving the American economy <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-to-propose-cutting-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-coal-plants-30percent-by-2030/2014/06/01/f5055d94-e9a8-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html">as much as $30 billion a year</a> by the date of full implementation in 2030. <br /><br />
As for hurting the economy, White House spokesman <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/207938-wh-epa-rule-will-lower-bills-create-jobs">Jay Carney said</a>, “The <span class="caps">EPA</span> has been protecting air quality in the United States for more than 40 years, and in that time we've cut pollution by 70 percent and the economy has tripled in size.”</p>
<p>The Chamber certainly doesn’t expect the public to look for the facts in the matter; they just want them to take their word for it. But what the Chamber <em>really</em> didn’t count on was that the businesses they represent would be so embarrassed by the group’s report. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/03/3444143/member-companies-chamber-climate/">From Think Progress</a>:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">While not addressing the specific issue, <span class="caps">UPS</span> told ThinkProgress that it “belongs to many organizations and while we share common views on some issues, we do not share the same views on all issues.” Verizon, reaffirming its commitment to sustainability and environmental responsibility, said, “While we are members of the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Chamber of Commerce, we generally are not involved in policy issues that do not directly affect our business, such as the regulation of power plants.” Coca-Cola said it has no position on the Chamber’s report, 3M said it is still reviewing it, and Lockheed Martin said that it “has not evaluated the chamber’s report,” noting, “and it’s our understanding that the proposed regulations do not apply to us as it involves power plants.” <span class="caps">MGM</span> Resorts, while noting its commitment to clean energy, said it is not able “to claim the authority to comment on the issue of power plant emissions.”</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">Prudential wrote: “The Chamber does not speak on behalf of Prudential.”</p>
<p>Ouch.</p>
<p>This is also not the first time that the <span class="caps">US</span> Chamber has found itself on the wrong side of the climate change fight. In 2009, the Chamber saw a <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/news/61669-apple-becomes-fourth-company-to-leave-us-chamber">mass exodus of members</a> over their refusal to acknowledge global warming science. Major companies like Apple, Nike (resigned from the Chamber’s board, but still remained members), and Exelon publicly admonished the Chamber for their backwards stance on climate change and pulled their support from the group’s efforts. <br /><br />
Given the latest backlash from corporations, you have to wonder whether or not the business powerhouse has finally gone too far in denying basic science.</p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '8199';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=8199"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2521">U.S. Chamber of Commerce</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4561">Apple</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4540">Nike</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5688">Business</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/epa">EPA</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10138">Rule</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6078">Carbon Emission</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11607">2030</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6079">Money</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1004">economy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2327">environment</a></div></div></div>Wed, 04 Jun 2014 21:44:26 +0000Farron Cousins8199 at http://www.desmogblog.comFrom Kermit to Coal, Book Reveals How World's Top Brands Greenwash The Publichttp://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/04/kermit-coal-book-reveals-how-world-s-top-brands-greenwash-public
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Greenwash%20coverspread.jpg?itok=LSl1grhj" width="200" height="311" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>“I <span class="caps">GUESS</span> it <em>is</em> easy being green,” said Kermit the Frog as he bounced around a <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7372950930856015507" target="_blank">Ford Escape Hybrid in a 2006 television</a> ad campaign.</p>
<p>During the ad, Kermit displayed his innate talent for not blinking which, it has to be said, is due essentially to his congenital lack of eyelids.</p>
<p>But had Kermit blinked, he would have missed the small print at the bottom of the ad which showed that at the time, this “green” vehicle had a fuel consumption slightly worse than the <span class="caps">US</span> average.</p>
<p>But that seems to be the rule when it comes to claims of climate-friendliness made by some of the world's biggest brands.</p>
<p>Check the small print, and the responsible green hue soon fades to something resembling bullsh*t-brown (or whatever color denotes hypocrisy). At least that's the conclusion after reading Australian author and researcher Guy Pearse's latest book. Pearse spent close to four years immersing himself in some 3000 <span class="caps">TV</span> commercials and viewing about 4000 print and web adverts, all of which make claims of climate friendliness (I disclose here that I had a small paid role as a fact-checker on the book).</p>
<p>After checking the brand's actual contribution to climate change (or their lack of transparency) in more than 700 company reports, Pearse finds in <a href="http://www.guypearse.com/?p=91" target="_blank"><em>Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams</em></a> that the green revolution is being either grossly overblown or faked.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>Some 24 industry sectors, a host of “eco-celebs” and most of the world's top brands are covered in the book and very few emerge unscathed.<img alt="" src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/kermit_hybrid.jpg" style="width: 400px; height: 226px; float: right; " /></p>
<p>Among the brands examined are Coca-Cola, Pepsi, McDonalds, Bank of America, Barclays, Apple, Starbucks, <span class="caps">GM</span>, Yum! Brands (<span class="caps">KFC</span>, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), Boeing, Virgin, <span class="caps">GM</span>, Toyota, FedEx, <span class="caps">UPS</span>, <span class="caps">DHL</span>, Tesco, Walmart, News Corp, <span class="caps">CBS</span> and many more. The book's inside sleeve displays a tic-a-tape of green slogans.</p>
<p>Pearse, a <a href="http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/AboutUs/GuyPearse.aspx" target="_blank">research fellow at the University of Queensland's Global Change Institute</a>, finds that brands pull a series of common tricks when they make claims that they're cutting their emissions. For example, take Wyndham hotels, who don't count the emissions from the 7000 franchised properties which bear their name.</p>
<p>Or Panasonic, which ignores the emissions from the raw materials needed to make all their electronic gadgets (a common omission). Then there's the regular trick of having a target to cut emissions which is based on carbon intensity (such as <span class="caps">CO</span>2 per sq metre of floor space or per product) but ignoring the fact those savings are rubbed out many times over as companies expand.</p>
<p>Other companies claim concern for the climate while failing to disclose their carbon footprints. Sometimes Pearse simply reveals rank hypocrisy, such as Royal Bank of Canada buying offsets for a carbon-neutral Olympics torch relay while also financing tar sands and coal projects.</p>
<p>The book is sure to leave many climate conscious consumers feeling like they've been had (no doubt the climate would express some dismay too, if it could). But should consumers feel hopeless? Pearse told DeSmogBlog:</p>
<blockquote>
I don’t think people should feel hopeless about the greener product, but they need to distinguish between the individual product and the climate-friendliness of the larger brand. It’s hard to argue that a brand is that concerned about climate change if the overall footprint of its products is still growing while it’s busy conveying the opposite impression. We also need to be realistic about the number of people buying the green product, and the cumulative impact, if we stay on the path we’re on.</blockquote>
<p>Pearse also reserves some criticism for environmental groups who allow their brands or their projects to be aligned with emissions-intensive businesses, including major coal and oil companies or their financiers (think <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4291190.html" target="_blank">Earth Hour</a>).</p>
<blockquote>
Some environmental groups shoulder much more responsibility than others. There’s nothing wrong with environmental groups seeking out corporate champions. However, when these groups routinely mis-represent companies whose products have a growing carbon footprint as ‘climate savers’ and the like, they’ve really become a part of the greenwashing problem—lending credibility to the notion that big brands are going green when they’re not. That winds up feeding complacency and a misplaced faith in a revolution that’s not actually happening.</blockquote>
<p>So after spending hundreds of hours looking at green claims in adverts, does Pearse have any “favourites”?</p>
<blockquote>
For sheer entertainment value, my favourite green ad is probably <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml54UuAoLSo" target="_blank">Audi’s Green Police Superbowl commercial</a>. The green billboards are also right up there – from Coke’s one in Manila with its 3,600 carbon-absorbing tea plants to Ricoh’s 3 <a href="http://www.springwise.com/marketing_advertising/europe%E2%80%99s-sustainably-powered-billboard/" target="_blank">renewable billboards</a> in London, New York and Sydney – all of them helping to greenwash growing carbon footprints. Some of the fashion industry brands are pretty memorable too – from the Global Warming Ready campaign by Diesel to the ‘Look hot while discussing global warming’ poster by Levi’s.</blockquote>
<p>One of the most striking elements in the book is how Pearse reveals time and time again, how major corporations will heavily market even the smallest of environmental achievements, while ignoring their direct interests in fossil fuels. So who does Pearse pick as the worst of these greenwashers?</p>
<blockquote>
Shell probably wins as the most prolific and shameless case. Even as they seek to expand oil and gas production by a sixth in 5 years there seems no limit to the fantasies woven into their climate-friendly advertising pitch: from billboards with smokestacks emitting flowers to <span class="caps">CO</span>2 molecules being chased with butterfly nets, to the ‘Let’s grow our own fuel. <a href="http://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell/lets_go_tpkg/?gclid=CNDKiuKv57ICFQdepQod4xgAhA" target="_blank">Let’s Go’ posters</a>, to their sponsorship of solar vehicles in the Eco-Marathon. It’s as relentless as it is disconnected from Shell’s core business.</blockquote>
<p>As Kermit pointed out, it appears it is easy being green - or at least, it's easy being greenwashed. </p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '6564';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=6564"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10386">Guy Pearse</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9634">Greenwash</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7491">Coca-Cola</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1423">pepsi</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10387">McDonalds</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7743">Bank of America</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10388">Barclays</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4561">Apple</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10389">Starbucks</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1243">GM</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10390">Yum! Brands</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10391">KFC</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10392">Pizza Hut</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10393">Bank of Canada</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2632">tar sands</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10394">earth hour</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10395">Taco Bell</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9300">boeing</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10396">Virgin</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/toyota">toyota</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10397">FedEx</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10398">UPS</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10399">DHL</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10400">Tesco</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10401">Walmart</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1420">news corp</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10402">CBS</a></div></div></div>Fri, 05 Oct 2012 03:13:19 +0000Graham Readfearn6564 at http://www.desmogblog.comMohawk Paper Joins Chamber of Commerce Exodushttp://www.desmogblog.com/mohawk-paper-quits-chamber-commerce-over-climate-joins-growing-exodus
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/us_chamber_of_commerce_1.gif?itok=r_tOz8Wj" width="200" height="200" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Mohawk Fine Papers became the <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mohawk-fine-papers-resigns-from-us-chamber-of-commerce-over-climate-policy-65016092.html" target="_blank">latest company to resign</a> from the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Chamber of Commerce over climate policy disagreements, adding more embarrassment to an <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/chamber-of-commerce-hoax_n_326069.html" target="_blank">already rough week for the Chamber</a>.</p>
<p>According to the Mohawk press release:</p>
<div style="border: 1px solid LightGrey; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; width: 87%;">
<p>“We believe that our continued membership in an organization that vigorously opposes sensible climate change policies is detrimental to our position as a business leader with a strong record in the areas of environmental innovation and climate protection,” says George F. Milner, Mohawk’s Senior <span class="caps">VP</span>, Energy, Environmental, and Government Affairs.</p>
<p>“We understand that the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Chamber’s job is to promote policies that represent the consensus opinion of its membership; but the Chamber also has a responsibility to shape that consensus with vision, guidance and leadership that looks beyond ideological divisions. That is particularly important in the area of climate change policies,” Milner wrote in a <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/another_firm_bails_on_the_us_c.html" target="_blank">letter to the Chamber last week.<!--break--></a></p>
</div>
<p>Mohawk specifically cited the Chamber’s efforts to derail Congressional climate and energy bills, and its call on <span class="caps">EPA</span> for a <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/us-chamber-commerce-challenge-climate-science-court">“Scopes Monkey Trial”</a> debate on man-made climate change, as reasons for exiting the Chamber. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/yes-men-punk-chamber" target="_blank">Yes Men punked the Chambe</a>r yesterday in a fake news conference, drawing Chamber spokesman Eric Wohlschlegel into an uncomfortable position when real reporters started asking him why the Chamber is clinging to its position denying climate change. After stumbling through a few defensive replies, Wohlschlegel handed out business cards and left the scene.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/another-company-may-leave_n_319782.html" target="_blank">Huffington Post reported</a> last week that MacAndrews <span class="amp">&amp;</span> Forbes Holdings, the holding company owned by multi-billionaire Ronald Perelman, is also debating whether to leave the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Chamber of Commerce over its extreme climate position and “Scopes Monkey Trial” challenge to the <span class="caps">EPA</span> over the Clean Air Act.</p>
<p>The Chamber has been losing members – real members out of its <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/incredible-shrinking-us-chamber-commerce-faces-intense-pressure-over-extreme-climate-position">actual 300,000 or less total</a> – at a rate of several each week lately. <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/apple-quits-us-chamber-commerce-over-climate">Apple was the most recent</a> in a string of high-profile defections including <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/strike-three-exelon-leaves-chamber-commerce-over-climate-stance">Exelon</a>, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/pnm-resources-leaves-us-chamber-board-slams-stance-climate">Pacific Gas <span class="amp">&amp;</span> Electric, <span class="caps">PNM</span> Resources</a>, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/nike-quits-chamber-commerce-board-over-climate-rift">Nike</a>, <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/the_us_chambers_continuing_cli.html " target="_blank">Levi Strauss <span class="amp">&amp;</span> Co., <span class="caps">PSEG</span></a>, and the <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/san-francisco-chamber-commerce-ends-partnership-us-chamber" target="_blank">San Francisco Chamber of Commerce</a>. </p>
<p>Mother Jones magazine has done <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/10/chamber-commerce-vs-climate-change" target="_blank">several</a> <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/why-are-these-green-companies-still-us-chamber-commerce" target="_blank">excellent</a> <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/more-chamber-commerces-climate-denial" target="_blank">pieces</a> recently <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/yo-chamber-commerce-you-speakin-me" target="_blank">explaining the reasons behind the exodus</a>, including an excellent article titled <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/10/chamber-commerce-vs-climate-change" target="_blank">“Inside the Chamber of Carbon.”</a></p>
<p>Who will be the next to abandon the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/incredible-shrinking-us-chamber-commerce-faces-intense-pressure-over-extreme-climate-position">rapidly-shrinking Chamber</a> over its extreme climate position?</p></div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '4131';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=4131"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/813">pg&amp;e</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/818">exelon</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2521">U.S. Chamber of Commerce</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4540">Nike</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4546">PNM Resources</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4561">Apple</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4569">Tom Donohue</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4570">MacAndrews &amp; Forbes Holdings</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4571">Levi Strauss &amp; Co</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4572">PSEG</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4581">Mohawk Paper</a></div></div></div>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:54:35 +0000Brendan DeMelle4131 at http://www.desmogblog.comThe Incredible Shrinking U.S. Chamber of Commerce Faces Intense Pressure Over Extreme Climate Positionhttp://www.desmogblog.com/incredible-shrinking-us-chamber-commerce-faces-intense-pressure-over-extreme-climate-position
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>It turns out that the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Chamber of Commerce <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/us-chamber-caves-membership-numbers " target="_blank">only has 300,000 members</a>, not the “more than 3 million” it claimed to represent just a day ago, before Mother Jones magazine questioned the business lobby’s inflated numbers. <br /><br />The Chamber has now “quietly backed off” the 3 million figure, <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/us-chamber-caves-membership-numbers " target="_blank">according to Mother Jones</a>, which reports today that:</p>
<div style="border: 1px solid LightGrey; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; width: 87%;">Since 1997, the “3 million” figure has appeared in print more than 200 times in newspapers and broadcast outlets of all sizes…<br />By contrast, the 300,000 figure, which appears nowhere on the Chamber’s website, is cited in the news database Lexis-Nexis only three times–infrequently enough to be mistaken for a typo.”<br /></div>
<p><br />Getting called out for such <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/us-chamber-caves-membership-numbers " target="_blank">“semantic tricks”</a> is the least of the Chamber’s problems these days. <br /><br />The <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/another-company-may-leave_n_319782.html" target="_blank">Huffington Post reports</a> that MacAndrews <span class="amp">&amp;</span> Forbes Holdings, the holding company owned by multi-billionaire Ronald Perelman, is debating whether to leave the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Chamber of Commerce over its extreme climate position and recent “Scopes Monkey Trial” challenge to the <span class="caps">EPA</span> over the Clean Air Act. <br /><br />The Chamber has been losing members – real members out of its actual 300,000 or less total – at a rate of several each week lately. <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/apple-quits-us-chamber-commerce-over-climate">Apple was the most recent</a> in a string of high-profile defections including <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/strike-three-exelon-leaves-chamber-commerce-over-climate-stance">Exelon</a>, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/pnm-resources-leaves-us-chamber-board-slams-stance-climate">Pacific Gas <span class="amp">&amp;</span> Electric, <span class="caps">PNM</span> Resources</a>, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/nike-quits-chamber-commerce-board-over-climate-rift">Nike</a>, <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/the_us_chambers_continuing_cli.html " target="_blank">Levi Strauss <span class="amp">&amp;</span> Co. and <span class="caps">PSEG</span></a>. </p>
<p>The exodus has weakened the Chamber’s credibility on the Hill at a critical time when business leaders are <a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-8178-Phoenix-Green-Business-Examiner~y2009m10d8-Clean-energy-debate-heads-to-White-House-with-corporate-executives " target="_blank">descending on Washington</a> to lobby Congress to pass strong climate and energy legislation. Pete Altman at <span class="caps">NRDC</span>’s Switchboard blog has compiled a running tally of editorials from around the country criticizing the Chamber’s intransigence on climate change in a post titled <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/the_us_chambers_continuing_cli.html " target="_blank">“The <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Chamber’s Continuing Climate Credibility Crisis.” </a><br /><!--break--><br />Even the White House has joined in the Chamber pile-on. Energy Secretary <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/08/barack-obama-climate-change " target="_blank">Steven Chu told reporters</a> “it’s wonderful” to see so many companies quit the Chamber of Commerce. “I think companies like that - Exelon and others - are saying we have recognized the reality,” Chu said. “They are saying we can’t be a party to this denial and foot-dragging.” <br /><br />“I would encourage the Chamber of Commerce to realize the economic opportunity that the United States can lead in a new industrial revolution,” <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE5975AI20091008 " target="_blank">Chu said</a>. <br /><br />Pressure is now building on the Chamber from multiple fronts.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.greencentury.com/">Green Century Capital Management</a>, which manages environmentally friendly mutual funds, and a group of investment-focused organizations sent letters this week to <a href="http://www.nawindpower.com/naw/e107_plugins/content/content_lt.php?content.4746" target="_blank">14 corporations urging them to end their Chamber memberships</a> (and in many cases their memberships with the National Association of Manufacturers). Read the <a href="http://enviroknow.com/thesource/2009/10/14/large-investor-urges-13-major-corporations-to-end-membership-in-chamber-of-commerce/" target="_blank">letters over at EnviroKnow</a>.<br /><br />The Silicon Valley Leadership Council, which represents around 300 <span class="caps">IT</span> and tech employers including Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!, joined with the Environmental Defense Action Fund and Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network on a <a href="http://thehill.com/hillicon-valley/605-technology/62871-silicon-valley-group-knocks-chamber-over-climate-stance">print ad campaign this week</a> urging the Chamber to change its ways and support climate legislation in Congress. <br /><br />“Silicon Valley is ready to lead the world in the next great technological revolution: clean energy,” the ad states. “That’s why we’ve been so disappointed by the opposition of the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Chamber of Commerce to clean energy legislation now moving through Congress.”<br /><br />A coalition of progressive activists and attorneys just launched <a href="http://www.stopthechamber.com/ " target="_blank">StopTheChamber.com</a> this week as well, knocking not only the Chamber’s climate position, but also its role as “an extremist political organization dedicated to corrupting American democracy by elevating the profits of big corporations over the well being of the citizens they serve.” The campaign is <a href="http://www.stopthechamber.com/ " target="_blank">calling on Congress to investigate the Chamber</a> on multiple fronts, including fraud, false tax filings and campaign finance violations. <br /><br />But the Chamber’s backwards stance on climate change remains the focus of most critics at present. Mother Jones magazine has done <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/10/chamber-commerce-vs-climate-change" target="_blank">several</a> <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/why-are-these-green-companies-still-us-chamber-commerce" target="_blank">excellent</a> <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/more-chamber-commerces-climate-denial" target="_blank">pieces</a> recently <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/yo-chamber-commerce-you-speakin-me" target="_blank">explaining why</a>, including an article titled <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/10/chamber-commerce-vs-climate-change" target="_blank">“Inside the Chamber of Carbon.”</a> The piece notes that the Chamber’s “aggressively narrow climate policy” may violate its own policy-making process since the full board of directors never formally voted on the matter, as is customarily required by the Chamber’s procedures. Chamber <span class="caps">CEO</span> Tom Donohue rebuts that argument, telling reporters that the board voted on climate issues, but they were part of a ‘consent calendar’ where members voted on several items at once. (Sounds sort of like a Congressional rider or earmark where pet projects are tacked onto larger bills and never face sunshine or scrutiny by the full membership.)<br /><br />A <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/09/09greenwire-enviros-waging-orchestrated-pressure-campaign-28715.html" target="_blank">Chamber insider told <span class="caps">E&amp;E</span> news </a>that the real thrust of the Chamber’s campaign to derail the House-passed energy and climate bill came from some of the group’s major donors, who worked behind the scenes to influence Chamber activities through staff-level contact. “Companies with the largest contributions tend to hold more sway with chamber staff on setting final policy positions,” <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/09/09greenwire-enviros-waging-orchestrated-pressure-campaign-28715.html" target="_blank">according to the anonymous official</a>.<br /><br />Despite the growing pressure to change its ways, the Chamber remains stuck in the past, clinging to its diminishing role as ‘the voice of business,’ while many major <span class="caps">U.S.</span> businesses leave it behind to forge ahead on climate and energy solutions.<br /><br />“If people want to attack us, bring em on,” <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/08/barack-obama-climate-change" target="_blank">Chamber <span class="caps">CEO</span> Tom Donohue told reporters</a>.<br /><br />“We are not changing where we are,” he said. “We’ve thought long and hard about what is important here and we are not going anywhere.”<br /><br />How long will that intransigence hold up? Will the Chamber remain relevant, or become the laughing stock of Washington, representing a dying breed of angry fossil-fuel-dependent industrialists?</p> </div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '4121';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=4121"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/813">pg&amp;e</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/818">exelon</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2521">U.S. Chamber of Commerce</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3729">steven chu</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4540">Nike</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4546">PNM Resources</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4561">Apple</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4569">Tom Donohue</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4570">MacAndrews &amp; Forbes Holdings</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4571">Levi Strauss &amp; Co</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4572">PSEG</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4573">StopTheChamber.com</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4574">Silicon Valley Leadership Council</a></div></div></div>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:09:46 +0000Brendan DeMelle4121 at http://www.desmogblog.comApple Quits U.S. Chamber of Commerce Over Climatehttp://www.desmogblog.com/apple-quits-us-chamber-commerce-over-climate
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Apple became the fourth company in recent days to completely sever ties with the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Chamber of Commerce over the business lobby’s backwards stance on climate change.<br /><br />In a letter to the Chamber obtained by the New York Times, <a href=" http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/apple-chamber.pdf " target="_blank">Apple states [<span class="caps">PDF</span>]</a>:</p>
<div style="border: 1px solid LightGrey; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; width: 87%;">“We strongly object to the chamber’s recent comments opposing the <span class="caps">E.P.</span>A.’s effort to limit greenhouse gases…Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the chamber at odds with us in this effort.”</div>
<p><br />The letter from Apple Vice President Catherine Novelli continues:</p>
<div style="border: 1px solid LightGrey; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; width: 87%;">“We would prefer that the Chamber take a more progressive stance on this critical issue and play a constructive role in address the climate crisis. However, because the Chamber’s position differs so sharply with Apple’s, we have decided to resign our membership effective immediately.”</div>
<p><br />Apple did the right thing, and other Chamber members should follow suit immediately.<br /><br /><span class="caps">NRDC</span> has an <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/us_chamber_of_contradictions.html " target="_blank">excellent run-down of several recent editorials</a> from around the country, all slamming the Chamber of Commerce’s efforts to block action to address climate change. The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30wed3.html" target="_blank"><em>New York Times</em> editorial</a> points out that “no organization in this country has done more to undermine [climate] legislation.” </p>
<p><br />The <em>Times</em> editorial “Way Behind The Curve” notes that the companies who have quit the Chamber so far “see a carbon-constrained world coming and want to get out ahead of the curve — not behind it like the chamber.”<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/10/03/chamber_of_overstated_horrors/ " target="_blank"><em>Boston Globe</em> skewered the Chamber</a> for its “increasingly shrill, doom-saying opposition to climate change legislation in Washington” in its editorial titled “<span class="caps">US</span> Chamber of Overstated Horrors.” <br /><br />The <em>Globe</em> called the recent departure of energy companies Exelon, <span class="caps">PNM</span> Resources and <span class="caps">PG&amp;E</span> “welcome cracks in the stone wall of the chamber. The question is how many more of the chamber’s 3 million members need to quit before the organization alters its retrograde view.” <br /><br />That is a great question. How many companies will stand up and quit the Chamber? Every departure sends a strong message to the Chamber that a few powerful fossil fuel interests cannot claim to represent the views of corporate America. Who will be next to <a href="http://www.whodoesthechamberrepresent.org/ " target="_blank">send that much needed message</a>?</p>
<p><a href=" http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/apple_resigns_from_us_chamber.html " target="_blank">Running tab</a> of criticisms by the Chamber’s own members:<br /><br />Quit <span class="caps">US</span> Chamber: <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/strike-three-exelon-leaves-chamber-commerce-over-climate-stance">Exelon</a>, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/pnm-resources-leaves-us-chamber-board-slams-stance-climate"><span class="caps">PNM</span> Resources, <span class="caps">PG&amp;E</span></a>, Apple.<br /><br />Quit <span class="caps">US</span> Chamber Board: <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/nike-quits-chamber-commerce-board-over-climate-rift">Nike</a>.<br /><br />Says Chamber doesn’t represent their views on climate: <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/the_us_chambers_fringe_climate_1.html" target="_blank">Johnson <span class="amp">&amp;</span> Johnson</a>, <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/ge_the_us_chamber_does_not_spe.html">General Electric</a>, <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_13474082?nclick_check=1&amp;forced=true" target="_blank">San Jose Chamber of Commerce</a>.</p> </div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '4111';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=4111"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/toyota">toyota</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/action-on-climate-change">action on climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/general-electric">General electric</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/813">pg&amp;e</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/818">exelon</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2521">U.S. Chamber of Commerce</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4490">Johnson &amp; Johnson</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4540">Nike</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4546">PNM Resources</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4561">Apple</a></div></div></div>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:41:17 +0000Brendan DeMelle4111 at http://www.desmogblog.com